3++ Con statistics

3++ Con statistics and numbers

Some interesting findings. Grey Knights dominated in presence (although not wins) but the next closest were Dark Eldar and Orks. Surprisingly small number of Space Wolf and Blood Angels players and, of course, both flavors of Chaos, Tau, Tyranids and Dark Angels scraping the bottom of our the barrel.

I suppose the hypothesis that the people who stick to their shit codices would be the hardcores and therefore good with their armies but it just doesn't seem to be that way.

Quote :

With the continued and documented relative success of Orks across multiple tournaments and regions, it does lend strength to the claim that Orks are capable of trading blows with the 5th edition books but over several games against good opponents, are more likely than their 5th edition counter-parts to fall apart simply due to lack of codex choices and options on the tabletop.

I continue to spread this truth across the forums I go to, Orks are one of the best books ever for how long its remained viable.

Interesting stuff in there.

Quote :

Can people finally stop bitching about Guard?

And another thing I have been saying forever!

Agreed on the ork point.

As for IG, I stopped thinking highly of them when I tried playing them. I'm sure a well-played, well-built IG list is still a huge threat, but they're certainly not OP and not the "OMG Guard iz ruining Warhammerz!" that people hyped them up to be.

That's what Grey Knights are for...

And yet, where did grey knights fall in this tournament and gottacon? Competitive but not crushing all. As the posters are saying, small sample, who faced who, list vs generalship, blah blah, but the ONLY things I will concede as being possible after the last several years of tournaments and results being posted online?

1. SW are a top 3 army.
2. Orks are to be forever competitive.

http://www.3plusplus.net/2012/02/3con-results.html#more

This looks to be the top 10?

David Teoh (SW)50.000
Janinda Liyanaarachchi (Orks)47.778
Tim Byrne (Orks)45.278
Chee Wong (DA)43.889
Mitchell Corrigan (GK)43.889
Scott Norwood (DE)41.944
Gary Morris (GK)41.389
Glenn Wilson (Eldar)40.833
Jared Clifford (SM)40.000
Ryan Sirol (GK)37.778

I think SW are top 3 by the numbers alone. They can do everything Space Marines can do but with cheaper/better Troops, Long Fangs and better psychic powers. So yeah, of course they're a good army? Auto-win? No, of course not.

And you're not willing to concede that tyranids are the worst 5th edition codex? Really? Really!?

Ok, maybe that one as well, though Sisters are close now!

I hadn't even considered Sisters as I don't think of it a real codex but yeah, it could give tyranids a run for their suck money.

Just a few things.

1. Though GK are not claiming 1st overall at all tourneys, they are well represented in the top tiers.

2. There seem to be really just two tiers of Codex these days: Average, and Above Average (GK, SW, Nec, DE). No dex is way OP.

3. Army build trumps codex.

4. Generalship still trumps army list and codex choice. since well played DA, Orks, Eldar and Vanilla marines do well.

I think everyone agrees a good general trumps a good list which in turn trumps a good codex. But all things equal, I think there are good 'dexes and bad 'dexes. Nothing is OP and you can with with anything, but some will give you more variety, more tools and more options.

I don't think GK are any more represented than BA or SW when they came out? I think it's pretty standard "New MEQ army, get the spray paint!".

New MEQ, internet cries of 'omg they are broken' and elite points cost = small numbers to buy, all add up to GK's being quite popular and easy to start.

Not sure how I would rank the armies at this point, and I agree with the panda, all things being equal there are good, and less good books. If the player skill is the same, if the dice are the same (average out) and both bring the 'A' lists, that is when you see which book is more powerful within the current meta.

That said, I am pretty sure the wolf list that won was a foot based list, spamming Hunters, and Wolf Guard, with 2 units of the obvious Long Fangs, so it was a SW list, but not what most would instantly associate with the common lists of late.

I was talking with Devon about it at the end of the tournament. The major difference I think between the new books and the old (good vs less good) is that a good book allows for redundancy of units within the list. You can afford to lose a few units, and still be able to keep on moving, while a poor list/book (my pure khorne Daemons) depended on too many factors to be truly viable. Seb for example killed a bunch of stuff in one of his games against the eventual DE winner of Gottacon, but it didnt phase his opponent, as each unit was probably sitting around 150 points with the transport included!

srg wrote:

I continue to spread this truth across the forums I go to, Orks are one of the best books ever for how long its remained viable.

I agree with this. It is obviously not that they are the big scary codex that everyone likes to shout "OP!" at, but it is best because of its staying power. It was new when 5th was new, and does not suffer from monobuild syndrome. There must be more than like 3 hardcore competetive builds. And the things that seem cheesy are still generally thematic (Battlewagon brigades)

There is one build I have seen that I absolutely abhor, and that us throwing Ghazghul in a kommando squad led by snikrot. Still, not OP, just cheesy.

I don't think that unit would be able to infiltrate/outflank....... the same reason you can't put Snikrot and krew in a Battlewagon to outflank. ALL models have to have the USR....